If the delegate strategy is "unethical", how would it not be unethical then in your mind if we only won a state with a few thousand people voting?
It does not make sense to campaign and spend millions convincing people to turn out and vote, only to negate their choices due to some clever "election engineering". How would you feel if it was the other way round and Paul was winning and then Romney injected his delegates into the process to overturn Paul's win, rendering your vote redundant? Wouldn't you and a few thousand people on this forum be the first ones to cry "Conspiracy!", even if Romney said "It is in the rules"?
NOTE: I personally do not really believe in democracy. I believe in individual rights that are best expressed in a Republic that has a limited government constitution. Democracy is redundant under such a system because it would not matter who is in office.
If it's not all about the delegates and it's about winning one or two states for perception, then we're fucked anyways.
It is about winning the popular vote, state by state, which gives you momentum to win more future contests and gives you the delegates without resorting to unethical strategies.
Ya the campaign should have been different. They should have tried to connect emotionally with people, made them feel safer about Paul. Answered questions differently about foreign policy, went on the attack after Romney...maybe they could have done some voodoo so that right wing neocon radio would give him some respect and the establishment would stop election tampering.
So far so good.
You may as well just ask the campaign to replace Paul because some of the suggestions I hear are to basically change who he is and how he talks...I never expected that from him.
What you are saying here is that Ron Paul is an old dog that cannot learn new tricks (Didn't I see him with an iPad recently?). This election cycle has proved beyond doubt that you cannot win an election without being good at
commmunication, especially in debates and interviews. If Paul refuses or is unable to do what it takes to win, he should not have wasted our time and money running. It is as ridiculous as someone running for president who refuses to participate in debates because it would mean that he has to "basically change who he is and how he talks".
He's running against Republicans and Obama. And educating Republican voters about how they are being misled. Is that the best strategy, to run against the party itself? Will that get you major amounts of voters and establishment respect? Hell no. But it's something that had to be done.
For as long as you communicate your message well and convince voters you are electable, what does it matter who you are running against or who needs education?
We can try hindsight all day but the truth is, there would be gripers no matter what he or the campaign did. If they changed their style or their talking points or how they addressed voters, to a tone more like the other three in the race in order to get voters, they would be accused of selling out.
If he were winning, I doubt there would be too much criticism. I only advocate a change in style not substance. Tailoring your message to specific audiences (emphasizing different things for each voting block) is not selling out. For example, if Paul is in a neocon leaning state, he can emphasize the fact that he would fight and finish within weeks any constitutionally declared war. There is no need to spend too much time trying to convince them that Iran is not a threat, although he can mention it in passing. He does the opposite and the results so far speak for themselves. Another example is he does not need to give off-the-cuff answers which tend to confuse voters. His campaign can prepare the most solid answers to the most frequently asked questions which he can memorize. For this, he does not even need to change his personality.
Personally, I only wanted Ron Paul in to advance the message of liberty. When I saw him leading in Iowa at one point, sure I donated more, maybe we could pull this out. But it didn't happen. So as someone who has donated a lot of money, I'm not devastated or angry. The results we have now compared to 2008 speak for themselves. We have a lot of people coming in and the GOP is taking notice. I don't think they'll change though and i'll surely work to help make sure establishment Republicans are defeated until they change.
Here we differ. The liberty message is great, but compared to winning the election and making real decisions that affect the entire world? No contest. I don't even care about the improvement in the results. For you it is a way to soothe your emotions to get over the disappointment but I am only interested in winning because there is infact no greater platform to preach than the presidency. Presidential statements and actions generate probably not less than half of all the news. Liberty evangelism doesn't do Jack.
i'm disappointed but after a night's rest, i think it does not matter. A win in Maine wouldn't have changed the fact people, even young RP supporters are too lazy to go vote. The eternal "Why would my vote make a difference anyways"? This is the kind of mentality. People just don't really care about public affairs.
Do I detect sour grapes here? Sorry but I don't buy these excuses, especially the "Americans are not ready for freedom" excuse which I would vote the worst of the lot.
I don't believe that we are as far away from it as you might suggest. When you talk to average GOP voters about issues, we generally have them on our side. Limited government, lower taxes, state's rights, pro-life issues - we have them on these issues. Even FP if it is explained correctly to them. One of the main problems this election has been connecting our candidate to those issues which has been where the campaign and grassroots have failed.
Now there is a sound analysis.
